Davis et al v. Ducote et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 17 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Robert G James on 4/24/14. (crt,DickersonSld, D)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
ROBERT J. DAVIS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0084
VERSUS
JUDGE ROBERT G. JAMES
TIMMY DUCOTE, ET AL.
MAG. JUDGE KAREN L. HAYES
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the Court is a civil rights action brought by pro se Plaintiff Robert J.
Davis, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on alleged violations of his First Amendment right to
practice his Islamic faith. Plaintiff, who is a prisoner currently incarcerated at the Jackson Parish
Correctional Center (“JPCC”), has asserted certain claims against Warden Timmy Ducote,
Chaplain Marvin Denton, and Jackson Parish Sheriff Andy Brown.
After having conducted an initial review, Magistrate Judge Karen L. Hayes issued a
Memorandum Order [Doc. No. 15] directing service of process on Defendants. Additionally, the
Memorandum Order directed Defendants, once served, to address the issue of exhaustion of
administrative remedies.
However, based on Magistrate Judge Hayes’ Memorandum Order, Plaintiff has filed the
instant motion for recusal [Doc. No. 17]. Plaintiff accuses Magistrate Judge Hayes of having a
“personal and judicial bias” because “direct[ed]” Defendants to file a motion for summary
judgment on the issue of exhaustion. Id. He argues that Judge Hayes raised an affirmative
defense for Defendants when Defendants had waived the issue.
First, the Court notes that Plaintiff improperly asserts that Defendants have waived any
defense, including exhaustion, when they have not yet been served,1 and the deadline for filing an
answer has not yet passed. Second, the memorandum order which Magistrate Judge Hayes
issued merely directs Defendants to address whether Plaintiff should be required to exhaust his
administrative remedies (under JPCC’s policies and procedures) and whether he did exhaust his
remedies. The memorandum order further authorizes Defendants to take one of two actions if
they contend that Plaintiff was required to and failed to exhaust his administrative remedies: (1)
file a motion for summary judgment or (2) file a motion for evidentiary hearing if the facts
relating to exhaustion are in dispute. Nothing about Magistrate Judge Hayes’ standard order
indicates that she has a personal or judicial bias against Plaintiff. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal [Doc. No. 17] is DENIED.
MONROE, LOUISIANA, this 24th day of April, 2014.
1
The order directing service and the issuance of summons were filed on April 23, 2014,
so it is doubtful that Defendants have been served a day later, on April 24, 2014. Even if they
have already been served (which the Court cannot determine from the record), the deadline for
filing their answer has not yet passed.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?